Amiteshwar Singh

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant father sought partition and sale of a jointly owned property, occupation rent, and spousal support, while acknowledging his obligation to pay child support.

The court found the father had an 85% beneficial interest in the Colchester property via resulting trust and ordered its partition and sale.

Due to the mother's failure to provide financial disclosure, the court imputed her income based on rental properties and employment, ordering her to pay $28,000 in occupation rent and significant retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, and was awarded full indemnity costs due to the mother's non-compliance with disclosure orders.

A comprehensive family law trial addressing parenting, child support, property equalization, and damages claims arising from a short-term marriage with one child diagnosed with autism.

The court found the respondent not credible on multiple issues, including false assault allegations, and awarded the applicant sole decision-making authority for the child with a graduated parenting schedule, child support based on $60,000 income, an equalization payment of $88,913.89, post-separation adjustments of $26,188.75, and damages for malicious prosecution of $3,000.

The respondent's claims for family violence damages, occupation rent, and a restraining order were dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to split the divorce claim from the other issues in the case pursuant to Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent opposed, arguing that a divorce would prejudice her pending claims in India, and relied on an affidavit from an Indian lawyer as expert evidence of foreign law.

The court found the expert evidence inadmissible because the lawyer was not sufficiently qualified and the opinion lacked reliability.

Finding no disadvantage to either spouse, the court granted the motion to split the divorce and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant moved under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules to split his request for a divorce from the other issues in the case.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that a Canadian divorce would prejudice her ability to pursue property claims against the applicant in India.

The respondent relied on an unsworn letter from an Indian lawyer as expert evidence of foreign law.

The court found the letter inadmissible as expert evidence due to a lack of qualifications and explanation.

However, to deal with the case justly, the court adjourned the motion to allow both parties to obtain and present admissible expert evidence regarding Indian law.